Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Versus MRF Ltd.

2015 (11) TMI 824 - CESTAT CHENNAI

CENVAT Credit - Clearance of goods without payment of duty under CT-2 Certificate under cover of invoices to EPG for use in the packing of tubes and tyres - Held that:- There is no dispute on the packing material which is eligible for cenvat credit. The only dispute is that respondent has cleared packing material under CT2 certificate to their own EPG for export purposes which is declared as Export Processing Godown having a Customs Bonded Warehouse and the packing material used in the finished .....

ere cleared for export under bond in terms of provisions of CER. Accordingly the respondents are not required to reverse the cenvat credit while clearing under CT-2 certificate to their EPG unit and there is merit in the contention of respondent that LAA has relied his own OIA No.20/07 in the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/690/2007 & E/CO/40427/2014 - Final Order No. 41075/2015 - Dated:- 26-3-2015 - R P .....

paid on the packing materials and subsequently cleared the packing material to Export Processing Godown (EPG) at Puzhal for packing of export goods. The said packing materials were subsequently cleared without payment of duty under CT-2 Certificate under cover of invoices to EPG for use in the packing of tubes and tyres. Therefore, taking of cenvat credit in respect of packing material meant for use exclusively at their EPG unit is incorrect. The adjudicating authority in his OIO confirmed the d .....

nd availed cenvat credit but not reversed the credit while removing the packing materials to their EPG and not followed the procedure. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order relied his own previous OIA No.20/07 dt. 31.7.2007 which is under a different context where the same packing material was cleared to another unit where it formed as an input for the other unit. In the present case, the respondent's packing material are not used as an input in the manufacture of final goods. 4. .....

bmits that Revenue has not filed any appeal against the earlier order. He submits that Revenue cannot raise a new ground. He submits para-9 of the SCN alleges and para-13 invokes Rule 3 (4) of CCR where the allegation is input is cleared as such whereas in the grounds of appeal, Revenue has come out with a new ground that packing material is not an input. He further submits that rule 3(4) of CCR is not applicable for export. All clearances of packing materials were made only to their export godo .....